Grace Line, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 174 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of GRACE LINE, INC., EMPLOYER and AMERICAN MER-
CHANT MARINE STAFF OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, AFFILIATED WITH THE
A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
In the Matter of GRACE LINE, INC., EMPLOYER and AMERICAN MER-
CHANT MARINE STAFF OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER
Cases Nos. .t'-R-7389 and ,0-R-1132, respectively. Decided Jwne
17, 1947
Williamson cfi Wallace, by Mr. William R. Ray, of San Francisco,
Calif., and Messrs. F. M: Rohrer and W. F. Cogswell, both of New
York City, for the Employer.'
Mr. Leonard J. Bloom, of San Francisco, Calif., and Messrs. Meyer
Schifrin and Thomas Hill, both of New York City, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Pete Smith, of San Francisco, Calif., and Mr. William Stand-
ard, by Mr. Herman Rosenfelt, of New York City, for the Intervenor.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition filed in Case No. 20-R-1132, a hearing was held at
San Francisco, California, on August 2 and 5, 1946, before Louis R.
Mercado, hearing officer. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an addi-
tional petition in Case No. 2-R-7389. By Order dated February 19,
1947, the Board directed that the two cases be consolidated and that the
record in Case No. 20-R-1132 be reopened. A consolidated. hearing
was thereafter held at New York City on April 10, 1947, before Daniel
Baker, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,
1 At the hearing in Case No. 20-R-1132, the Intervenor was granted leave to intervene,
over the Petitioner 's objections that the Intervenor had made no showing of interest. In
Case No. 2-R-7389, prior to its consolidation with the former case, the Intervenor sub-
mitted evidence of its showing of interest . The Intervenor 's showing in Case No . 2-R-7389
is sufficient for the purpose of the consolidated proceeding.
At the 1946 hearing, the Intervenor requested a 6-month adjournment for the purpose
of preparing for the hearing . At the consolidated hearing, however, the Intervenor
stated that it had no further statement to make in connection with this matter, and
raised no objection to proceeding with the instant hearing. In view of that circumstance,
the Intervenor ' s original request for an adjournment must be considered withdrawn.
The Employer moved at the first hearing to dismiss the petition insofar as it applied
to vessels owned by the War Shipping Administration (sometimes referred to as the Mari-
74 N. L. R. B., No. 37.
174
GRACE LINE, INC. 175
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Grace Line, Inc., a New York corporation, is engaged in the business
of transporting freight and passengers on ships sailing on the high
seas from various ports of the United States and the Canal Zone to
other ports located chiefly in Central America, South America, and
the Caribbean area. The Employer operates approximately 68 vessels
in this service, such vessels being owned by the Employer or under
bareboat charter to it. At the time of the consolidated hearing in
the instant proceeding, the Employer also operated 4 vessels under
general agency for the War Shipping Administration, but such vessels
were scheduled to be returned to the WSA by May 1, 1947.2
The Employer does not deny, and we find, that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.3
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 4
The Petitioner 5 is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
National Maritime Union of America, herein called the Intervenor,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
time Commission) and operated by the Employer under general agency for the WSA The
Employer reiterates this position in its brief However, it was developed at the consoli-
dated hearing that the Employer expected to retain all such vessels to the WSA by May
1, 1947, and subsequently the Employer informed the Regional Duector that it was no
longer operating any ships under general agency On this state of facts, no employees
woiking on such ships are inAuded within the units hereuiatter found appropriate.
Therefore, it becomes unnecessary to pass upon the Employer's motion
=See footnote 1, supra
J See 11ottei of Grace Line, Inc . 2 N L R B 309
4 At the 1940 Mean rug in Case No 20-R-1112. National Union of Marine Cooks & Stew-
ards, CIO, moved to intervene, and this motion was granted However, this organization,
by letter dated -Larch 19, 1947, to Hearing Officer Baker informed the Board that it Ras
wrthdr,rivrng from the consolidated proceeding and disclauued anv tuither interest in the
matter
The name of the Petitioner appears in the captions as set north in its respective peti-
tions and all tornial papers in these cases At the 1940 hearing in Case No 20-R-1132,
the Pet,tionei, without objection, amended its petition to show its full name as American
Merchant Marine Staff Officers Association, Inc, affiliated with the Seafarers Interna-
tional Union of North America, A F of L In our Direction of Elections, we shall use
the mime used by the Petitioner in Case No 2-It-7389, which was instituted after the
motion to :intend was made with the piovision that the Petitioner may notify the Regional
Director of a desire to appear on the ballot under another name
755420-48-vol 74 13
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the, meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The Petitioner now requests a unit of all chief pursers, pursers,
senior assistant pursers, senior assistant pursers-pharmacist mates,.
junior assistant pursers, junior assistant pursers-pharmacist mates,
surgeons, assistant surgeons, pharmacist hates, and all other em-
ployees holding ratings under the Staff Officers Act and employed on
all vessels owned or operated by the Employer, including vessels
operated by it as general agent for the War Shipping Administra-
tions All parties agree that any unit found appropriate should be
Nation-wide-that is, it should embrace the eligible categories of em-
ployees working on the Employer's ships regardless of the, location
of their home port or the course of their voyage. The Intervenor is
agreeable to the inclusion within an appropriate unit of the various
categories of workers sought by the Petitioner, except that it would
exclude surgeons. The Employer takes the position that pursers on
passenger vessels (sometimes referred to as chief pursers) have super-
visory authority warranting their exclusion from any unit of other
pursers, and also seeks the exclusion of surgeons. It also maintains
that any unit found appropriate should exclude any employees work-
ing on ships operated by the Employer as general agent for the War
Shipping Administration.- °
It appeared at the 1947 consolidated hearing that, of the various
categories set fortth in the petition, the Employer had in its employ
oiily piuusers, assistant pursers, and surgeons. Some of the pursers
stationed on passenger vessels were often referred to as chief pursers
by reason of their classification as such under the so-called Staff Of-
ficers Act of 1939,$ and it is these pursers who, according to the Em-
' The Petitioner 's first petition , filed in 1944 ( Case No 20-R-1132 ), sought a unit of
employees on all the Employer's ships, but at the 1946 hearing the hearing officer granted
a motion by the Petitioner to amend this petition so as to limit the alleged appropriate
unit to employees on vessels whose articles are signed on the Pacific Coast or at any Pacific
Coast port or whose home port is on the Pacific Coast The petition in Case No 2-it-7389
sought it unit of employees on vessels of the Employer's Atlantic Coast and Gulf operations
Snice it appears that the Employer is not presently operating any ships for the War
Shipping Administration (see footnote 1, supra), employees on such ships will be-ex-
eluded from the units hereinafter found appropriate.
8 August 1, 1939, c 409, § 1, 53 Stat 1145, as amended September 24, 1941, c 416, 35
Stat 729, 46, U S. C. A. § § 242-248, mel
GRACE LINE, INC. 177
plover's argument, have such great supervisory and managerial au-
thority as to warrant their exclusion from any unit of pursers. - Since
the Employer does not have on its pay roll any senior assistant pursers,
senior assistant pursers-pharmacist mates, junior assistant pursers,,
junior assistant pursers-pharmacist mates, pharmacist mates, or as-
sistant surgeons, we shall limit our consideration of the appropriate,
unit to the categories of chief pursers, pursers, and assistant pursers,,
as well as surgeons.
The Employer operates a fleet of some 68 vessels, of which 11 are'
combination passenger-cargo boats and 57 are freighters. A purser
and an assistant purser are assigned to each of about 10 of the freight-
ers, a single purser works alone on 30-odd other freighters, while the
remaining freighters carry no pursers. The Employer does not dis-
pute the inclusion of all these pursers and assistant pursers within
an appropriate unit. On each of 2 passenger vessels,° there is a chief
purser as well as 7 pursers under him ; on the other 9 passenger ships,
a chief purser and 2 pursers. Each of the passenger vessels also carries
a surgeon.
The Employer argues that each of the chief pursers not only super-
vises the work of the other pursers on the passenger vessels, but also
acts as its direct representative carrying out management policy inso-
far as passengers are concerned, as Well as handling financial matters.
and dealing with shore officials-duties which are not required of
any pursers on freighters. However, the Board has frequently set,
up units in the maritime industry which include supervisory em-
ployees, in view,of the universal custom in that industry whereby such
employees are covered by collective bargaining contracts 10 Such units-
would be appropriate even if there were no showing of local collective
bargaining history in a particular area.',
The chief pursers do not appear to exercise a sufficient amount of-
independent judgment in effectuating company policy to confer man-
agerial status upon them12 Furthermore, the chief pursers on pas-
senger vessels have interests, working conditions, and living quarters
q One of these two vessels apparently was not being operated at the time of the consoli-
dated hearing.
10 See Matter of Midland Steamship Line, Inc, 53 N. L R. B 727, and cases cited;
Matter of Standard Oil Company of California, 67 N L R. B 506. The Board has ex-
plained that it uses the phrase "maritime trade," "in a commonly accepted sense to em-
brace an entire industry and the crafts associated therewith , including not only oceangoing,
coastwise. and Great Lakes water-borne traffic, but inland waterway traffic as well
Matter or Jones if Laughlin Steel Corporation , 54 N L R B 679 , 682. It is, therefore,
mimateiial that most of the units established by the Board have been among employees
on Gieat Lakes vessels rather than among employees engaged in ocean-wide shipping
U Matter of Jones if Laughlin Steel Corporation , supra . We note , in this connection
that the vaiious labor organizations in the maritime field are active among all types of
shipping and carry on their activities on a Nation-wide basis See Wissman, The Mm time
Industry, chap 3, passim.
11 Cf Matter of Southern California Edison Company, Ltd, 63 N. L. R. B 756.
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on board ship so similar to those of the other pursers on the Em-
ployer's various passenger and freight ships, and have such close con-
tact with the pursers they supervise, that the inclusion of both groups
within one unit seems warranted; and it does not appear that the
special duties of a chief purser are of such a nature as to eliminate the
community of interest he necessarily has with the other pursers on the
same vessel. It is significant that all categories of pursers, regardless
of title or duties, must be registered under the provisions of the Staff
Officers Act, and are subject to the various requirements set, forth in
that statute. In view of all the foregoing, we shall establish an
appropriate unit comprising the Employer's chief pursers, pursers,
and assistant pursers.
There remains for consideration the inclusion of surgeons in the
pursers' unit. The Employer and the Intervenor oppose the Peti-
tioner's contention that these surgeons should be included within any
unit of pursers. The Petitioner requests that, should the Board ex-
clude surgeons from the pursers' unit, a separate unit of surgeons be
established; this position is likewise opposed by the Intervenor and
apparently also by the Employer.
There is one surgeon on each of the Employer's passenger-cargo ves-
sels. On board ship, the surgeon is subordinate only to the master,
and is responsible for the health of the passengers and crew and for
maintaining proper sanitary conditions on board. The surgeon has
no regular office hours and is subject to call at any time by the passen-
gers and crew. He is paid on a monthly basis. Although the medical
division, in which the surgeon is located, is an established part of the
Staff Officers Department, which also encompasses pursers, by reason
of the provisions of the Staff Officers Act of 1939, the interrelation-
ship of the surgeon's work and the work of the purser's division is
somewhat limited, being confined to the processing of the surgeon's
reports and to mutual cooperation during the vessel's clearance
through quarantine. For the most part, the surgeon and the pursers
perform entirely different types of work and do not ordinarily consult
each other. In view of these circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the surgeons constitute a true professional group which should
not be included in the same unit with pursers, but rather iii a sepa-
rate unit. To deny such a separate unit would be to deprive these
professional employees of their right to choose collective bargaining
representatives under the Act, if they should desire them.t3 We shall,
therefore, establish a separate unit of all surgeons working on the Em-
ployer's ships 14
13 See, e g, matter of Alumnunn Company of America, et al, 62 IN L R B 31S, hatter
of Continental Steel Coiporatxon, 61 IN L R. B. 97
14 The Intervenor stated at the hearing that it did not desire to appear on the ballot in
any election held in a separate unit of surgeons.
GRACE LINE, INC. 179
We find that all pursers and assistant pursers employed on vessels
owned and operated by the Employer, including chief or supervisory
pursers on passenger-cargo vessels, but excluding employees on all
vessels operated by the Employer -as general agent for the United
States Maritime Commission, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
We further find that all surgeons working on vessels owned and
operated by the Employer, but excluding surgeons on all vessels op-
erated by the Employer as general agent for the United States Mari-
time Commission, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
The Petitioner and the Employer both request that any elections
held among the Employer's workers be conducted by mail, whereas the
Intervenor desires manual balloting. As this is a maritime election,
we hereby authorize the Regional Director for the Second Region,
under whose direction the elections will be held, to utilize mail ballot-
ing whenever, in his opinion, expedience will be served thereby, and
to determine the period of time in which receipt of ballots so cast
will be accepted.
Because there is little turn-over among the employees involved
herein, all of whom are paid on a monthly basis, we see no reason to
grant the Intervenor's request that a day certain be used to determine
voting eligibility. We should instead utilize the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of the Direction as the basis for ascer-
taining eligibility to vote.
We shall also provide that the elections be held as soon as possible,
but not later than 90 days, instead of 30 days, from the date of the
Direction, inasmuch as our agents may require more than the usual
time to lay the groundwork for the holding of the elections.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 15
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Grace Line, Inc., New York
City, separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than ninety ( 90) days from the date of this
ss Any participant in the elections herein may , upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by , the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, among the employees in the units found appropriate in Sec-
lion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who
slid not work during said pay-roll because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces
of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls,
but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of
the elections, to determine :
(a) Whether the employees in the pursers' unit, described in Sec-
tion IV, above, desire to be represented by American Merchant Marine
Staff Officers' Association, affiliated with the A. F. of L.,16 or by
-National Maritime Union of America, CIO, for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, or by neither; and
(b) Whether or not the employees in the surgeons' unit, described
in Section IV, above, desire to be represented by American .Merchant
Marine Staff Officers' Association, affiliated with the A. F. of L.,17 for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
16 The Regional Director is hereby authorized to determine whether this labor organiza-
tion (the Petitioner herein) shall appear on the ballot under another name, should the
Petitioner file with him a request for such change within 10 days of this Direction.
14,Tbid.